consequence in the State; and he repeatedly asserted that it would not be in the power of the best or ablest Minister to make them great and happy, unless they had the spirit and will to become so. An honourable Gentleman had mentioned "the magnanimity of Parliament in relieving Ireland? What was it made Parliament magnanimous in relieving Ireland? It was the magnanimity of the people of Ireland, who were resolved to be relieved. What was it made Parliament magnanimous towards America? It was the vigorous and successful opposition made by the people of America to their power. From the vigorous exertion of the people of England to rid themselves of their grievances the same success might be expected. He conjured them to depend chiefly upon themselves for a redress of their grievances, and not to sit still in expectation of it from any statesman, how great soever might be their abilities, or how patriotic soever their intentions." He concluded by exhorting constituents diligently to watch the conduct of their representatives, and carefully to inquire into the motives of it-in fine, to consider themselves as the guardians of their own rights, and to entertain a rational distrust of all men in public stations.1 Only one month of agitation was over-only for one month had the Platform been telling of the grievances of the people, and already did the meetings awaken searchings of spirit and fears among the Ministers and their dependents. Already were charges of faction and false patriotism hurled against the meetings and their promoters. "With the plausible pretence of establishing economy, and checking corruption, and venality," wrote a contemporary newspaper, 2 "their scheme is to combine and associate the people in all parts of the kingdom, and to form committees of correspondence, that by their joint force and opposition to the Government they may effect a change of Administration, or raise a confederacy which shall dictate to the Legislature and exercise supreme power in the State." In this agitation, so far, the country had been the most active. London, however, at last joined. "The spirit of the freeholders of York seems to pervade the whole country," 1 See The Gazetteer and New Daily Advertiser, 1st February 1780. G wrote a London newspaper,1 "and at length has begun to show itself in the metropolis." On the 2d February a meeting was held in Westminster Hall. About 3000 persons met, headed by the Duke of Portland, the Cavendishes, Wilkes, Burke, Townshend, Lord Temple. Charles Fox was placed in the chair; Sawbridge moved the Petition, and was seconded by Wilkes, who, "in one of the best speeches he ever made," expressed his happiness at that "spirit of association which at this period pervaded the kingdom." A Petition similar to that of York was voted, and a committee of lords and others chosen. Charles Fox then made "a fine and warm speech," and was particularly severe on Lord North, and Dr. Jebb proposed Mr. Fox for the future candidate for Westminster, which was received with universal applause. London city followed suit with a meeting a few days after. It is clear from these accounts that in this agitation, in which the Platform took so conspicuous a part, a large portion of the upper and middle classes participated. The names of those who are reported as attending the meetings as well as of the speakers show this conclusively, and this circumstance is one of those which distinguishes this agitation from that in connection with the Middlesex election. It also marks strongly the fact that whilst many were disposed to discountenance the Platform when used by those they did not approve of, yet they themselves were willing to use it when it suited their own purposes to do so. In this case the object was one which enabled those participating in it to sink their political differences, as all who did not profit by Government extravagance might combine for economy in the administration of State affairs. Summing up the number of meetings which had been held, and having regard to the position and character of the people who had attended them, it is apparent that by means of the Platform a very considerable agitation against the Government had been created in the country, and the new feature of association rendered the agitation more formidable than any which had previously taken place. 2 lbid. 3d February 1780. 1 The Morning Chronicle, 31st January 1780. To repeat the test already laid down for gauging the power of the Platform, we must examine how far it had, on this occasion, an effect on Parliament and on the Government. The effect was considerable-greater by far than had been the case in the Middlesex election agitation. "The Court has been thunderstruck with what has already been done," wrote Horace Walpole, on the 2d February; and a few days later he varied it somewhat by saying, "At first the Court was struck dumb." Then looking forward to the future with interest he added: "Detached scenes there have been, in different provinces; they will be collected soon into a drama in St. Stephen's Chapel.” 2 3 The first scene of the drama took place in the House of Commons on the 8th February 1780, when the Petition from the county of York was presented by Sir G. Savile, he who exactly ten years previously had boldly told the House that they had "betrayed the rights of their constituents." History relates that the importance of the subject, the novelty of the occasion, and, perhaps, still more the character of that eminent and revered patriot, produced so profound an attention, that deep silence and stillness reigned in every part of the House. Well might Ministerial members of the House be silent and listen with bated breath. Half England had risen in public and formal judgment on them and their misdeeds, and now not merely the accuser but the reprover had come, cataloguing their iniquities with unfaltering hand; and holding up their enormities before their eyes and the eyes of the world. It was the first clear and unmistakable monition to the whole crew of "King's friends," boroughmongers, placemen, and the corrupt hangers-on of the Government, as well as to the Government itself, that they must amend their ways, that England and England's people were not theirs to do what they liked with, as they seemed to think they were. "He brought a Petition," said Sir G. Savile, "which had swallowed up the consideration of all private objects, and superseded all private petitions-a Petition subscribed by 8000 freeholders and upwards. 2 Ibid. p. 328. 1 Walpole's Letters, vol. vii. p. 325. "The people had heard that a regard to private interest in the House was a great enemy to the discharge of public duty. They feel severely the pressure of heavy taxes, and yet are at the same time told that "the money which they can ill spare is wasted profusely, not only without its producing any good, but that it is applied to the production of many bad effects. They beg that inquiry may be made into the expenditure of that money; that if there are any exorbitant salaries they may be reduced; that if there are any useless places or unmerited pensions they may be abolished. These things, he said, were represented calmly and with moderation. Never, surely, we're petitioners to Parliament, upon any great public grievance, more cool and dispassionate. They confine themselves to one object-the expenditure of public money. But though they made no strictures on the past management of Ministers, he could not but in candour acknowledge that it was pretty plainly hinted or implied, that those who had hitherto managed our public affairs should manage them no more. He made no threats; the Petition was not presented by men with swords and muskets. It was a legal, a constitutional Petition. The request of the petitioners was so just and reasonable that they could not but expect it would be granted; but should it be refused, there he would leave a blank-that blank let the consciences, let the feelings, let the reason of Ministers supply. Partial expedients, palliations, excuses, mock inquiries, would not be sufficient. The universality of the sentiments on this subject, he said, was no contemptible proof of their justness. He wished that House to consider, from whom that Petition came. It was first moved in a meeting of six hundred gentlemen and upwards; in the hall where that Petition was conceived, there was more property than within the walls of that House."1 He then threw down with a good deal of vehemence upon the table a list of the gentlemen's names, and continued: "But they are not to abandon their Petition, whatever may be its fate in this House; there is a committee appointed to correspond on the subject of the Petition with the committees of other counties," and he concluded by likewise throwing on the table a list of the names of the committee. 1 Parliamentary History, 1780, vol. xx. p. 1376. Well can we understand that "the Minister seemed to show some vexation and resentment in his answer."1 Fox backed up the Petition. "He could not imagine," he said, "that any objection could possibly be made to the Petition. But some might perhaps say, Are we sinners above all that went before us? like those on whom the Tower of Siloam fell? Are we more corrupt than other Parliaments who were never pestered with petitions of this kind? No," said he, "I do not suppose you are; but though former Parliaments were as bad as you, and you know the severity of that comparison, yet the people did not know it. Now they do not perhaps see it, but they feel it; they feel the pressure of taxes, and they beg you would not lay your hand so heavily upon them, but be as economical as possible in the expenditure of their money. Let the Ministers grant the request of the people, and the whole glory of so popular a compliance will be entirely theirs. Like charity, it will cover the multitude of their past sins."2 The other Petitions followed the presentation of this leading Petition very fast. No less than twenty-six counties in England, and three in Wales, and several considerable cities, had adopted petitions and passed resolutions, and as one petition after another was presented, even so corrupt, so self-assertive an assembly as the then House of Commons, must have felt that they were face to face with a display of popular opinion such as they had never before witnessed. Before any direct Parliamentary action was taken on these petitions, the effect of the agitation reached the House of Commons in another shape, that of a plan by Edmund Burke, who, stimulated by the meetings, Platformings, and petitionings, propounded a most elaborate measure for the better security of the independence of Parliament, and the economical reform of the civil and other establishments. What he had bent the whole force of his mind to, he said, was "the reduction of that corrupt influence, which is itself the perennial spring of all prodigality, and of all disorder, which loads us more than millions of debt, which takes away vigour from our arms, wisdom from our councils, and every 1 Annual Register, 1780, p. 90. 2 Parliamentary History, 1780, vol. xx. p. 1378. |